Skip to main content

tv   Ronan Farrow Daily  MSNBC  April 2, 2014 10:00am-11:01am PDT

10:00 am
battlefield state that a few more dollars to the minimum wage. as wu tang warned, cash rules everything around us. >> breaking news from the supreme court. >> what the supreme court has done is strike down the federal law that limited how much a single person could give to all political candidates put together. >> president obama is set to leave the white house and make his way to michigan where he will continue his push to raise the federal minimum wage. >> if you raise the minimum wage, you have more money to spend, you have more money to get off of social assistance. >> now to second day of questioning for gm's ceo about why the car company did not recall more than 2.6 million vehicles sooner. >> when we have answers, we will be fully transparent with you. with our regulators. and with our customers. >> is the american government planning to release a spy? >> i think this is a horrible idea. >> that dunn help american government, does it not? >> no, it makes us look weak, frankly, and desperate. >> the idea that everybody in this country can get decent
10:01 am
health care, that goal is achievable. >> they had to have 7 million people sign up. >> 7.1 million americans have now signed up for private insurance plans. >> 7.1 million americans have signed up for obamacare. now when i go to my doctor's office, there will be 7.1 million people in the waiting room ahead of me. we begin with a major development out of the supreme court on how much you can spend on the politicians you believe in and how big a role money plays in this country's elections. it has struck down the rule that individual donors can make to candidates, political parties and political action committees. joining me now to dissect this is nbc news justice correspondent pete williams. he is outside the supreme court. pete, break down this ruling and how significant it is for us.
10:02 am
>> so, it's well to bear in mind that the root limit here on how much you can give to a candidate remains. what the court has struck down is how much you can give to all candidates put together, which was about 49,000, and how much you can give to all political parties and packs put together, which was about $75,000. what the supreme court said is, money -- relying on rulings that are four decades old, a person's money, what you contribute, amounts to speech and you can't limit it without a really good reason. and the only really good reason the court said is avoiding quid pro quo corruption. i give you something, you give me something in return. as long as the individual limit stands, the court said, it doesn't make any difference how much you give to all candidates put together. the chief justice writing for the majority said the congress can no more limit how many candidates you can contribute to than it could limit how many candidates a newspaper could endorse. it's all about speech. the dissenters here said no,
10:03 am
that misreads how it works in the real world, that this is going to allow a greater influence for big money in politics and allow the big money voices, the people with a lot of cash to drown out ordinary people and further distorting the political process, and they say it's doubly damaging given that just four years ago, the supreme court and citizens united sort of unleashed corps rat and union money into the political world as well. so those are the guts of the ruling. it's really a disagreement here between what happens with this money. the supreme court said there's no constitutional way to say people with a lot of money should have a limited role in politics because that would violate the first amendment. the dissenters say that you're going to drown out the small voices. >> pete, this is the latest in a series of supreme court decisions that seem to be slackening restrictions on campaign contributions of various types and contributions to political causes in the name of those first amendment rights.
10:04 am
do you see that trend continuing? >> reporter: i do, although i think it's fair to say that the republican party who supported this case and helped to bring it here was really hoping that what the court would do is do away with the legal justification for any limits on contributions whatsoever. that comes from a post-watergate ruling in the 1970s when the court said that you can limit contributions, but you can't limit spending by candidates. i think the conservatives were hoping the supreme court would do away with that altogether. the court said there's no way to do that. so the contribution limits on individual candidates, the 2,600 you can give to any candidate or any primary in general, that stands and the court didn't have any desire to revisit that. >> we actually have some breaking news on this. the white house actually has just responded to reporters. their reaction, they said they were "disappointed with the ruling." do you think they were surprised given this trend that we've been talking about? >> no. not given the trend or how the oral argument went.
10:05 am
it really became quite clear that justice kennedy would join the conservatives here. the only question i think we had was -- it seemed quite clear that the limit on individual contributions were doomed. several members of the court said how does it make constitutional sense to say you can give the max to nine candidates for congress but not ten. what's the constitutional justification for that? so that seemed doomed. what we thought maybe the court might split the difference here and uphold the limit on how much you can give in total to packs and parties, but they struck it all down. all the so-called total limits, or aggregate limits are gone. >> all right. a lot of limits gone and a lot of questions about where this is going to head next. nbc's pete williams, really appreciate that. so both the winning and the losing arguments you just heard about rested on free speech and the first amendment. in issuing his winning declaration, chief justice john roberts wrote, "there is no right in our democracy more basic than the right to participate in electing our political leaders." that's the majority decision and sentiment on this court.
10:06 am
however, there was a strong, strong dissent. justice steven briar, for instance, called the decision a blow to the first amendment and to american democracy. he said, "if the court and citizens united opened a door, today's decision may well open a floodgate". i am joined by one of congress's biggest voices on this issue, that's vermont senator bernie sanders. you have been outspoken on this. senator sanders, i want to get a lay of the land. house speaker john boehner was asked this morning if he thought this gives too much advantage to wealthy donors. listen to what he had to say. >> what i think this means is that freedom of speech is being upheld. you all have the freedom to write what you want to write. donors ought to have the freedom to give what they want to give. >> so that's one republican reaction to this. who on the hill loses the most and who do you think gains the most from this decision? >> well, this is not a complicated issue. the republican party has been pushing this agenda and the conservative wing of the supreme court has supported it.
10:07 am
clearly the winners are the millionaires and billionaires of this country who can now contribute even more money to the candidates of their choice, to push a reactionary right wing agenda. this continues the undermining of the foundations of american democracy, one person, one vote. and it says to the millionaire and billionaire class, hey, you can do whatever you want to do. by the way, ronan, let me predict this. this is not the end of it. you've got citizens united, you've got mccutchen, the republicans now will move to end all limitations on campaign funding, so the billionaires can now spend as much as they want in any way that they want on any candidate in the united states. >> you mentioned the next steps legislatively for republicans. but what's in store on the other side of the aisle, and for independents like yourself who want to push back against this? there was a time when we had mccain, feingold, people fighting this slackening of
10:08 am
restrictions. is there still that sentiment or is there no longer an appetite to push back on this? >> it's not a question of whether there's an appetite. you no longer have -- with very few exceptions -- republicans who are concerned about this issue. they see it as a gravy train. if you can now get unlimited sums of money, what's the problem? they think it's a great idea. now, what some of us believe is number one, we have to overturn this disastrous supreme court ruling on citizens united. number two, we need an immediate disclosure act so that we know who is contributing to campaigns. and number three, eventually, if we are going to save american democracy in this country, so the one person one vote means anything, we need public funding of elections so that everybody has a shot to win and not just those people who are supported by big money or are wealthy themselves. >> you are part of a small but very vocal group of people advocating for just that. and to some extent, the ball is in legislators' court right now.
10:09 am
we'll be watching to see whether you're herd ard on this. thank you so much. up next on "ronan farrow daily," president obama is hitting the road to push a measure that he says will put money in the pockets of 28 million american workers. that is right after the break. i must begin my journey,
10:10 am
10:11 am
which will cause me to miss the end of the game. the x1 entertainment operating system lets your watch live tv anywhere.
10:12 am
can i watch it in butterfly valley? sure. can i watch it in glimmering lake? yep. here, too. what about the dark castle? you call that defense?! come on! [ female announcer ] watch live tv anywhere. the x1 entertainment operating system, only from xfinity. welcome back to the program, everybody. president obama has just landed in michigan, where he is going to yet again call for a higher minimum wage from a stage at the university of michigan. why michigan? well, a state level fight is playing out to raise michigan's current minimum wage, which at $7.40 is already slightly higher
10:13 am
than the current federal standard of $7.25. that could foreshadow a big national fight. earlier today, business leaders and social justice advocates called for immediate action on capitol hill and senate democrats have introduced a bill that would push the federal standard to $10.10 an hour. though it is unlikely to get past republicans in the house. joining me to dig into this big issue further, the president and ceo of the national urban league, one of the several groups that are out there supporting the president's push on this. and also douglas eakin, the former cbo director and adviser to john mccain. now he does think tank work and is a big voice on this issue. you've called this a job killer. explain why that is. >> this is a cost to businesses. and if you raise this cost, it's got to come from somewhere. and most likely, where it's going to come from is additional hiring. and we see pretty clear evidence that when the minimum wage gets
10:14 am
raised, the net job creation goes down. you don't see a lot of layoffs. what people always caricature this as. right now that's the last thing we want to do. this issue has emerged because the recovery has been so poor. there's genuine stress on the ground. even for those who have had jobs. they're not getting raises. so there's a real problem. this just isn't the right solution. >> it's a tough issue, i will say i've talked about this issue publicly and i've had people get up and say i run a small business, this would be devastating to me, i would have to cut workers. so it's about not just introducing the solution of minimum wage hike, but also working with businesses to see if that happens, how can they work with it. i want to turn to you, mark and get your response to that in a second. "washington post" has written on this. kathleen parker called, for instance, the bill that your group is championing a desperate move for democrats, saying it has no chance of passing the house. do you think this is more a symbolic statement? is this a statement of hey, we tried? >> not at all. we have to pay workers for the
10:15 am
work that they do. it's an economic fairness issue. secondly, it makes good common sense economics. one, the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation. nor has it kept pace with worker productivity. and if it kept pace with worker productivity, we might have a minimum wage at $20 an hour. so raising it to $10.10 is not a radical idea. and thirdly, those 30 million americans who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage would in fact spend that money as consumers and increase consumer demand on the necessities of life. so there is simply no real meaningful substantial evidence looking all the way back to 1938 that minimum wage increases have had a detrimental effect on the american economy, the converse is true. >> and there are a lot of economists who are in exactly that camp. i think this is a solid argument, this will inject money
10:16 am
into the economy at some point. that has to be conveyed by the president as he makes this argument. how do you respond on the political side? there are a lot of those saying this is a win/win politically for democrats and therefore everyone is pushing it, because either you succeed in upping the minimum wage, or you succeed essentially in making republicans who are opposed to this look bad because they're giving up on these people who would be benefiting from it. >> you know, separate from looking at d versus r, let's look at what the american people think. i think there's polling which demonstrates that 70% of the american public supports this kind of increase in the minimum wage. that's a majority of both parties. combined with 50 economists who have come out strongly in support of it in a joint letter. so both the politics and the economics, the people and i think the experts strongly support this. and i think if you look back historically, every president with the exception of reagan and ford, who was president for a short period of time, signed an increase in the minimum wage. so it's time for this to happen
10:17 am
now on president obama's watch. >> and i'll tell you, going back to you, doug. homelessness in the last week on this show. saw a lot of stories of people who because the minimum wage is so low in cities where the costs of living are rising, are in shelters even though they're holding jobs. so this would be a god send to those people. they talked a lot about this minimum wage issue. it resonates with that crowd. what do you say to those people? >> it would be a god send to them. this is one of the reasons it's very popular. one thing i want to agree with is the public loves the idea of a higher minimum wage. it has for a long time and there will be many state ballot initiatives and i think many of them will pass. but it's the job of the policymakers to look past what's popular and easy and get it right. and the problem with this is the money has to come from somewhere. and so if you take a fast-food industry, you raise the minimum wage and suddenly the customers are going to the same fast-food, who are largely low income, are paying higher prices. so you've taken the money from one poor person and given it to another. that's not exactly a good anti-poverty strategy.
10:18 am
and the evidence is it does cost jobs. doesn't cost huge amounts of jobs. it cost jobs for low skill workers who are largely in eating and drinking and retail trade. and 500,000 jobs, that's about a year's worth of job growth in those industries. we can't afford to do that to a population that needs work and incomes. >> it's going to be very hard to get republicans to come around to this. we'll see if that's reflected on the hill. thank you both of you. you can watch the president's remarks on this very subject on the minimum wage from university of michigan at 3:00 p.m. live on this very channel. we've also got some big developing news overseas today that i want to turn to now. a powerful 8.2 magnitude earthquake has rocked the northern coast of chile overnight. it killed at least six people and triggered major fires. see the fires there. they are still raging. power outages and landslides have also been reported. thousands of residents returned home this morning after they
10:19 am
were evacuated due to tsunami warnings. this is wreaking havoc. chile is located in the ring of fire, one of the most earthquake-ridden areas in the world. i also want to turn to another big, increasingly explosive international story. a suicide bombing rocked afghanistan's capital today. the latest of several ahead of a really pivotal election cycle in that country. six police officers died in this attack. it was on the interior ministry there in kabul. the taliban has claimed responsibility. afghan authorities have responded by shutting down many of the big western hangouts in kabul, all potential targets now. there are just four days remaining until afghans go to the polls. i'm joined now from kabul by nbc news chief correspondent richard engel, who's been keeping us updated on this story. i want to ask you a specific question. you found one powerful story of survival in this recent wave of attacks. tell us about that. >> we profiled last night on "nightly news" a young boy, a
10:20 am
2-year-old, and he survived m miraculo miraculously, you could say, a horrific attack on the serena atell, a luxury hotel, a supposedly safe hotel. he was at dinner with his family, a holiday meal. four gunmen went through security, they weren't thoroughly checked. they went into the hotel's dining room. they took out pistols which they had hidden in their shoes. they loaded the pistols and started firing. they killed this young boy's parents, his mother and his father, two of his siblings, several other people were killed and injured. and this boy was shot four times and his mother was pleading for her children's lives. she was also killed. and he was initially left for dead. he was rushed to a local hospital. and survived and is doing fairly well. he's still in a wheelchair. he's all bandaged up. and we told the story of what is
10:21 am
going on in afghanistan through the story of this one boy swaddled in bandages. and he really represented the best hope for this country, his family did. his father, who was killed, was a prominent journalist here. he opened a media production company. the father's brother, the little boy's uncle, is a well-known personality here as the book seller of kabul. and the concern is, as the violence continued, the best and the brightest are being gunned down as they have dinner. >> it really heartbreaking. and, of course, that's one of a huge number of devastating personal stories, and most never get chronicled. thank you for chronicling that one. how has it changed on the ground out there? there are all these closures of place where is westerners go for any kind of rest. but i remember being there for drinks, and all these other lyn lynchpins of the community there. is it increasingly hard leading up to the election? >> reporter: for the last several years, it's been getting
10:22 am
increasingly dangerous here in kabul. several years back, five, six years back, there were many foreigners here. there were many freelance journalists, aid workers, diplomats and we moved around kabul quite freely. there was not a lot of hostility toward westerners in the city. the fights with the taliban were predominantly in the south. and in the east, with occasional forays into kabul. now there are concerns that the taliban can move anywhere it wants in the city and you don't see foreigners going around as today used to, and some of my friends, afghan friends, are getting armored cars for the first time and they themselves are feeling concerned, which goes -- i think says more than even the concern that foreigners are showing here. >> well, we're keeping our thoughts with you and hoping you stay safe out there. thank you, richard engel. we're going to continue checking in with you leading up to saturday's election. up next on "rf daily," another big car manufacturer is
10:23 am
announcing a huge recall today, even as general motors' ceo returns to capitol hill for yet more grilling from lawmakers. >> this, to me, is not a matter of acceptability. this is criminal deception. ♪ [ engine turns over ] [ male announcer ] the 2014 nissan altima. with 270 horses... ♪ ...blind spot warning... ♪ ...and advanced drive assist. ♪ nothing beats an altima. except another altima. ♪ nissan. innovation that excites. ♪
10:24 am
10:25 am
 nissan. innovation that excites. the owner of a vehicle, with a bumper sticker, "turrible" your lights are on. you wanna get that genius? not mine. on the passenger seat, there is a collection of charles barkley highlight dvds.
10:26 am
must be a big fan. and the license plate reads "sir charles." i'm gonna get some drinks with my capital one venture card. be right back. earn unlimited double miles with no blackout dates from the capital one venture card. forgetting something, sir charles? what's in your wallet? welcome back, everybody. we are following developing news right now from capitol hill, where the ceo of general motors mary barra was back testifying before congress this morning. yesterday, it was the house, of course. and today, mary barra was in front of the senate subcommittee. she yet again fielded some tough questions about who within the company knew what, and when about the ignition switch defects that killed 13 people. >> there is indications that gm may have known as soon as 2001 about the problems with the
10:27 am
ignition switch. the fact that there would be two identical parts, and in other words, one is defective and one isn't, and that you didn't change the part number strikes me as deception, and i think it goes beyond unacceptable. i believe this is criminal. and i guess my question to you is, have there been any other instances where gm actually is changing a part and fixing a defect and keeps the part number the same? because this, to me, is not a matter of acceptability. this is criminal deception. >> i am not aware of any and it is not an appropriate practice to do. it is not acceptable. it is crucial, it's engineering principle 101 to change the part number when you make a change. >> criminal deception. general motors has now recalled
10:28 am
more than three million vehicles in recent weeks. new today, a recall from chrysler as well. that company is recalling 870,000 suvs because of a potential problem with the brakes. it is leaving a lot of americans with a lot of questions about whether there is enough oversight of these manufacturers, these manufacturers whose hands we put our lives into every single day. so that's the big story making headlines today. we've also been asking you to vote on the underreported story that you want covered next. you've been voting all week. the topics you brought upmost were, first of all, democrats fighting back against the cooke brothers and the influx of money from them. oil spills in texas and on lake michigan and other dirty crimes around the country. finally, the return of the deadlydead deadly ebola virus. you can go to our website and take a vote, tell us which underreported story you want to see more of and we will cover it on this show. up next today, our call to
10:29 am
action. we don't need no education, especially if it's just a pipeline to prison. what can be done to fix our schools? coming up. [announcer] if your dog can dream it, purina pro plan can help him achieve it. ♪ driving rock/metal music stops ♪music resumes music stops ♪music resumes [announcer] purina pro plan's bioavailable formulas deliver optimal nutrient absorption. [whistle] purina pro plan. nutrition that performs. live in the same communities that we serve. people here know that our operations have an impact locally. we're using more natural gas vehicles than ever before.
10:30 am
the trucks are reliable, that's good for business. but they also reduce emissions, and that's good for everyone. it makes me feel very good about the future of our company. ♪
10:31 am
10:32 am
we know we're not the center of your life, but we'll do our best to help you connect to what is. welcome back to "rfd." this week's call to action follows a shocking trend. public schools disproportionately disciplining minority students who get kicked out of school and too often end up in the criminal justice system. a new government report has found damning evidence of what many are calling the school to prison pipeline. here's what we'd like you to do at home. call your local school and ask what programs they have for ask-risk youth and tell us, do you think it's enough? do you have kids in school and
10:33 am
are you seeing that programs are or aren't enough around them? let us know on facebook or of course you can e-mail it. we are going to bring you a different perspective on this challenge every day this week. today, we look at the obama administration's response. and for that, i turn to katherine lehmann, assistant secretary for civil rights at the office that released this startling study. katherine, thank you so much for joining us. >> thanks so much for having me, ronan. >> this report included a staggering look at suspensions, starting as early as preschool. why are schools suspending 4-year-olds? >> we don't know the answer to that question. what we know from the data is that they are and it's startling numbers and it's startling numbers that are disproportionately tipping in favor against really students of color. >> three times the suspensions for students of african-americans i think specifically, is that right? >> that's right. at preschool, black students are 18% of our preschool students
10:34 am
but 42% of the students who were suspended one time and 48% of the students suspended more than once. so the preschool suspensions are far disproportionate and we're sending a really ugly message to our youngest students about their value in school. >> so what does that void do to students? what's the long-term effect of having these students disciplined sometimes arbitrarily, kicked out of school? what pattern do we see for the rest of their lives? >> well, there's a ton of research that shows that being suspended from school increases your chances of becoming incarcerated, decreases your school engagement and has devastating long-term consequences. independent of the research, i know as a mom that that message is an awful message. i have two young children. i know what it takes for them to get up and go to school every day. i know what i want from their schools in terms of sending a message of their value, their worth, their welcomeness at school. we know that we need to be in the most fundamental governmental relationship, the relationship of a school to a student. we need to be encouraging our students and teaching them about civic engagement and preparing
10:35 am
them for their worth in life. suspending them and expelling them from school early in life sends the wrong message and is devastating for us as a society. >> clearly, as you say, devastating consequences. your office has also outlined some solutions. what can schools do to change this? >> we're really excited about the guidance package that we released in january. the key components of the package were, this is what the law is, this is what we expect and this is the way that we enforce. also, here are things that teachers can do, alternatives to suspension expulsion that keep our kids in school, make sure all of our students are engaged, that we are behaving appropriately and that all of them are active learners so we can support them in school and engage all of our students in making sure the classroom environment is appropriate. we're excited about having been able to share that information and we're looking forward to seeing it implemented around the country. we know how much our teachers want to be teaching and want to be doing the successful work in the classrooms that we all want to support. >> we've seen such an outpouring of passion on this issue.
10:36 am
i know everyone watching at home is seeing those guidelines. they can go to your website and find those guidelines. maybe they can liaise with their schools and see some grass roots action as well. >> we really hope so. in addition, we hope that people are using the data. we've seen real change from the sunlight that the data provides. we hope that parents, community members, states are using that day to to determine whether they want to look beneath it, if there are concerns, see if there's any practices that they can change. this is something that we all can use as a community. and we're enthusiastic about seeing that practice. >> it's having a big effect around the country. thank you for this work and thank you so much for joining us here. coming up on "rfd," obamacare. the president is taking a victory lap and it is not just to get those calves tones. up next, stay with us. in the nation, we reward safe driving. add vanishing deductible from nationwide insurance and get $100 off for every year of safe driving. we put members first.
10:37 am
join the nation. ♪ nationwide is on your side
10:38 am
10:39 am
the expedia app helps you save with mobile-exclusive deals download the expedia app text expedia to 75309 expedia, find yours we conservatives must look the american people in the eye
10:40 am
and say, april fools! gotcha! gotcha! i mean, come on! obviously fighting obamacare was a four-year prank. i can't believe you bought it! why would we be the only western industrialized nation without access to affordable health care? >> a four-year prank. that was stephen colbert having some fun last night with president obama's health care law, which hit a big milestone yesterday. 7.1 million sign-ups as open enrollment ended. the president expressed his delight in the rose garden yesterday. take a listen. >> why are they so mad about the idea of folks having health insurance? many of the tall tales that have been told about this law have been debunked. there are still no death panels.
10:41 am
[ laughter ] armageddon has not arrived. instead, this law is helping millions of americans. and in the coming years, it will help millions more. >> will this victory lap run as far as the 2014 midterms. the stakes could not be higher. doing the math, republicans only need six seats to pick up the senate. it's a lot at stake for democrats. joining me now is mark halperin, msnbc senior political analyst, and luke russert, nbc news correspondent who is normally on capitol hill for us, but we are lucky to have him here today. and if you haven't had enough of luke when we're done with him, you can tune in at 4:00 p.m. >> a good day for white guys with blue button downs. >> autism. it's for a good cause. >> indeed. >> let's take a look at some of the white house reaction. check out the look on joe biden's face. oh, i love joe biden reaction
10:42 am
shots. do you think the whole white house is that happy today? >> i do. i think hitting that number of 7.1 million, which is the number they had set out to meet, was extraordinarily significant for them. because one thing that the house gop in particular really wanted to pounce on was the ability to say look, here's what you were trying to do, you couldn't even meet your own mark. by achieving that number, it's a huge pr victory. i also think what you saw there was the president giving those red state democrats who face an uphill battle sort of a template on how to run on this law. you've got to be aggressive about it. you've got to point to the fact that there's 100 million americans now receiving preventative care. seniors are saving billions of dollars because of a close in the loophole. so this idea of grab it and own it. that being said, i was in wisconsin a few weeks ago following around paul ryan, and it's interesting to hear people who are voters. they say we don't like this law, we don't know whether or not it should be repealed, but we're very scared of it. the enemy is not the health care law itself for a lot of voters. it's the confusion around it. and that is still the problem
10:43 am
with this white house and still the problem that democrats have. how can you sell this in a way and be on the offense in a way which is understandable, and when this president talks about preventative care, that's one thing. they've got to be more specific in that regard. >> and the political back and forth on all of the technical errors, which continued right up to the deadline has added to that cloud of confusion. mark, what do you think, the democrats have gotten more positive. there's been a little more embracing of this. but we still see a lot of critical quotes. a lot of people politically couching themselves carefully because of that device as luke mentioned, especially people up for re-election. we saw mark begich say, for instance -- let me find the quote here, actually. i think that it's actually that the number would have been even higher if the administration hasn't dropped the ball on management websites. so he was going back clearly to this theme of technical errors. do you think we'll see a dissipation of that, more democrats coming around? >> no, i think you've got a lot of liberals in congress who
10:44 am
would like there to be a full embrace. even people in the administration. it clearly suggests a full embrace. today, unless things change dramatically, i don't think you're going to see a full embrace. you're going to see a lot of democrats say i'm going to fight to help fix this. but they've got to embrace the concept of universal coverage and they have to embrace the law because almost all of them voted for it. i think the president continued to not be totally straight forward with people about what this law entails. there aren't death panels, but it does need to be cost controlled. there do need to be choices. there are people whose premiums are going to get higher. he is only talking about the positives. >> we'll see penalties when people start not signing up. is that going to change the tide? do you think democrats will be further hedging their bets? >> there's going to be a battle over anecdotes. you'll see a lot of democrats. there's going to be an argument about how much to change the
10:45 am
subject to the coke brothers. you'll see everyone who's running look at their district or state and say, are there stories here we can explain how the laws work? there will be plenty of stories on the other side. there's going to be an advantage on the republican side with more money for tv ads. >> those ads have already started in terms of health care. in wisconsin, it's pretty much a swing state, you see these ads already. on the other point, though, there's no doubt democrats are trying to switch the narrative to talk about anything aside from health care. they still don't want to own the issue. what i was saying earlier, they're trying to sort of build up the defense. what is the sort of fortress we can point to. mark is right. you don't want to have to talk about longer wait times. the fact that you are going to see some premium increases. if you get into this war of anecdotes, usually the side with more money and passion wins, which in 2014 is republicans. >> bill clinton put out a statement saying everybody should get behind the law. if he decides to hit the
10:46 am
campaign trail -- >> and we know the clinton bump. >> if he decides to hit the campaign trail september, october for people and talking about this, could make a big difference. >> let's talk about the demographics they've been targeting with the public outreach. they focused a lot of young people. president obama mentioned the three million people who are staying on their parents plans. it's a big demographic. it's important for diversifying the risk pool and getting lower cost players in the mix. on the other hand, you can like or lower the costs under the aca based on age. even if you can't based on preexisting conditions. so also those young people are going to be bringing in less. that has been a centerpiece. how do you see young people around the country from your experience? >> it's interesting today, as we wake up in the morning with our good friend mike allen's politico playbook, telling us that bradley cooper and two ferns saved the health care law. all those millions watching it. so brilliant stroke of pr genius. a lot of folks, especially the old school punditry being called
10:47 am
out of bounds. it's still very much a difficult thing. from the conversations i've had with young people, there's still a society of well that doesn't really affect me. there's this cloak of invincibility. however, one thing i have noticed is kids who stayed on their parents' plans and started receiving that care, they enjoy that. so i think where you're going to see a bump is a lot of folks who are 26 that get off their parents' plans and have to go on the market, once they've been accustomed to receiving that care for a few years from their parents, that is something they'll absolutely want to continue onwards. >> of course, you see not just young people watching that. it's an overall ground swell. could this pr outreach and the comedy outreach he's done -- what do you think, mark? >> hard to get young people to vote in the midterms. they voted for president obama. can they tap into health care in a way with targeted messages? i think that's one of the big potentials for democrats. not just with young people, but with other members of the coalition who have supported
10:48 am
president obama last time. can they reshape the electorate, young people, single women, african-americans, hispanics, other people who may be benefiting disproportionately from the health care law but don't necessarily know it. you're not going to go on tv with that message if you're a democrat, but can you reach them through social media, through targeted messages, voter to voter contact in a way. that could make a big difference. >> when you're starting the constituency in a month. that number is going to grow and grow and grow. by 2017, that number could be 30 million. that is a real sizable political constituency that democrats are going to have to tap into and figure out how to move forward. >> and they're going to have to figure it out fast. we have some high stakes races coming out. stick around, mark and luke are going to be here to weigh in on today's heroes and seay rowzero. should a notorious spy be used as a diplomatic bargaining chip? up next. when folks in the lower 48 think about what they get from alaska,
10:49 am
they think salmon and energy. but the energy bp produces up here creates something else as well: jobs all over america. thousands of people here in alaska are working to safely produce more energy. but that's just the start. to produce more from existing wells, we need advanced technology. that means hi-tech jobs in california and colorado. the oil moves through one of the world's largest pipelines. maintaining it means manufacturing jobs in the midwest. then we transport it with 4 state-of-the-art, double-hull tankers. some of the safest, most advanced ships in the world: built in san diego with a $1 billion investment. across the united states, bp supports more than a quarter million jobs. and no energy company invests more in the u.s. than bp. when we set up operation in one part of the country, people in other parts go to work. that's not a coincidence. it's one more part of our commitment to america.
10:50 am
10:51 am
10:52 am
and we are back with mark halperin and luke russert. and i'm going to get their take on today's "heros and zeros." big foreign policy is that the united states is floating the release of jonathan pollard, that is the american convicted of spying for israel 25 years ago, in exchange for israel freeing political prisoners. some gave it the thumbs up. quote, if gaining pollard's freedom gets netanyahu more bargaining power with his hard liners--the headline in the "new york times" was, bad move on jonathan pollard and their editorial board saying that the idea of using his release in a bargaining chip in israeli-palestinian peace
10:53 am
negotiations is a lamentable -- this administration's legacy, what do you think? luke, what's it playing like on the hill? >> it's interesting, you heard all these stories that john kerry was so close to middle east peace, closer than hillary clinton, now for all tents and purposes it's essentially blown up. it's been the story that's been out there in the public sphere for a long time. in this context, it appears to be a sign of weakness. specifically because what do you get in exchange for releasing jonathan pollard? perhaps the palestinians get their prisoners back from israel, but there's no set negotiations about how to move forward. it's just the idea of we just keep the conversations going with no central tennants about what's going expected around the next bend. >> actually, what's up ahead immediately is we just received
10:54 am
news that u.s., israeli and palestinian negotiators are going to meet tonight in the region. doesn't necessarily mean, we know from experience, that there's no real plan ahead, but maybe it's a sign of something working. >> it seems like not only desperate, but maybe even counter productive. because we're not in final talks. just to keep the talks going, do something to alienate the intelligence community, alienate all of people in the united states. just because john kerry's trying, what is the momentum, what is the leverage, what are the conditions, not for the united states but for two parties that make them want to deal. obviously people have tried and failed that many times. i just don't see why you should play a chip at a time when there is no momentum. you got to believe that either side would want to make a deal, but the conditions just doesn't exist for that right now. the policy should be on changing the conditions, then you can play with the pieces on the board. >> clearly, there is a
10:55 am
staggering loss of momentum here, and "the washington post" called john kerry, delusional, but we hope for this administration there's good news on the horizon. all right, thank you gentlemen, that wraps things up for this edition of "rf daily." right now it is time for the reid report, with my colleague joy reid. >> joy, what do you think of pollard? >> it's a tough one, because he did commit a very serious offense, spying against the united states, but it is a tough issue, they are trying to get talks restarted that are essentially dead in the water. >> and you're going to have more of that on your show? >> that is something we are going to be getting into this week. i may have to have you come across and come and hang out with me and talk about it. >> i'm in, thanks, joy. >> coming up on the reid report,
10:56 am
instead of running away from health care, suddenly democrats could start running on health care. senator barbara boxer will be here to talk about that and today's general motors hearing where she questions ceo mary barra. all that and more just minutes from now on the reid report. woman: everyone in the nicu -- all the nurses wanted to watch him when he was there 118 days. everything that you thought was important to you changes in light of having a child that needs you every moment.
10:57 am
i wouldn't trade him for the world. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. if you're caring for a child with special needs, our innovative special care program offers strategies that can help. man: i don't know...i forget. it last time? scott: hello, neighbors. man: hey, scott... perfect timing. scott: feeding your lawn need not be so difficult. get a load of this bad boy. man: sweet! scott: this snap spreader system from scotts makes caring for your lawn snapcrackin' simple, guaranteed. just take the handy, no-mess bag, then snap, lock and go. to see a demo of the snap spreader, go to scotts.com. feed your lawn. feed it! anncr: visit scotts.com/goyard for the chance to win a $25,000 backyard makeover.
10:58 am
it's been that way since the day you met. but your erectile dysfunction - it could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help
10:59 am
for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.
11:00 am
good afternoon, reiders, this is the reid report, joy reid. we have an action packed hour for you. general motors and those faulty ignition switches. senator barbara boxer quizzed the ceo today and finds outs what congress needs to do to protect consumers. >> the supreme courtpe

26 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on